September 12, 2019

No Image

Democratic Debate Exposes Deep Divides Among Candidates Over Health Care

Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden debate onstage during the Democratic presidential debate at Texas Southern University on Thursday in Houston.

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Once again, health care took up a large chunk of a Democratic primary debate. Once again, there were fights over costs, coverage and whether the party is growing too extreme.

But this time, all of the front-runners were onstage together, providing the first opportunity for all of them to take direct aim at each other and their vastly differing health care plans. It made for some heated exchanges, putting “Medicare for All” supporters on defense. But it also showed clearly that some candidates are cautious not to criticize others’ proposals too harshly.

Thursday night’s debate featured two stalwart supporters of the single-payer “Medicare for All” health care plan: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who introduced the bill, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, one of the bill’s co-sponsors. And from the start, former Vice President Joe Biden came out swinging at them.

“How are we going to pay for it? I want to hear tonight how that’s happening,” he said, making the case that his public option proposal would cost less.

One of the main arguments against “Medicare for All” is that it would mean much higher government spending. Supporters counter that it would lead to overall less health care spending than the current system. (Studies have been mixed on this question of whether costs would be higher or lower.)

What would change, they argue, is that the spending would be done by the government, with taxpayer dollars, rather than via copays and premiums, for example.

Warren drove at this point when moderator George Stephanopoulos asked about the potential for higher taxes for everyday Americans. In her answer, she did not give a flat yes or no — and avoided giving an endlessly sound-bite-able answer about the potential for higher taxes for everyday Americans.

“Instead of paying premiums into insurance companies and then having insurance companies build their profits by saying no to coverage, we are going to do this by saying everyone is covered by ‘Medicare for All,’ every health care provider is covered,” she said. “And the only question here in terms of difference is where to send the bill.”

There are also many Democrats, such as Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who stress that “Medicare for All” would virtually eliminate private insurance.

“While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill,” she said. “And on Page 8 of the bill, it says that we will no longer have private insurance as we know it. And that means that 149 million Americans will no longer be able to have their current insurance in four years.”

Polling has shown that many Americans don’t understand that private insurance would largely disappear under “Medicare for All”; polling has also shown that the idea of eliminating private insurance makes the plan much less popular.

Altogether, eight candidates on Thursday’s stage support either a public option or some other sort of overhaul that would still maintain a substantial role for private insurance.

Polling shows that a public option is far more popular than single-payer health care. A July NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 90% of Democrats, as well as 70% of all adults, support a public option. Meanwhile, 64% of Democrats (and 41% of all adults) support “Medicare for All.”

That’s less support, but still a majority of Democrats support Sanders’ single-payer plan, some of them passionately.

Perhaps with that in mind, even candidates who support other plans refrained from attacking the proposal — or its author — too hard.

For example, while Klobuchar slammed “Medicare for All,” she made sure to praise Sanders himself for working with her on trying to bring down prescription drug prices.

California Sen. Kamala Harris, who co-sponsored Sanders’ bill, sold her plan as a ” ‘Medicare for All’ plan,” though it is substantially different from what Sanders has proposed. (It would, for example, retain a significant role for private insurance.) She also took care to praise Sanders, even while she supports a different plan.

“I want to give credit to Bernie,” she said. “Take credit, Bernie. You know, you brought us this far in ‘Medicare for All.’ “

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who also co-sponsored Sanders’ plan, said Thursday, “I believe in ‘Medicare for All,’ ” but he also proposed a more incremental approach. Indeed, in past debates, when asked, he did not indicate that he would be willing to get rid of private insurance, which Sanders’ bill would largely do.

In responding to Biden’s attacks, Warren made sure to praise former President Barack Obama, saying, “We all owe huge debt to President Obama” for the Affordable Care Act. Likewise, Biden hugged Obama tightly in promoting his own plan, saying that it would build on Obamacare.

Obamacare is popular among Democrats — 84% have a favorable view of it — and it has grown in popularity among all Americans since Donald Trump’s election. However, all Democrats in this field agree that it needs an overhaul. The balancing act that many are trying to do is pushing their own plans without slamming others’ too hard.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

MIT To Settle Suit Alleging It Hurt Workers In 401(k) Plan

MIT is agreeing to settle a lawsuit that claimed it allowed its workers to be hit with big fees in their retirement accounts.

DEA/M. Borchi/De Agostini via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

DEA/M. Borchi/De Agostini via Getty Images

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has reached an agreement in principle to settle a lawsuit that alleged that MIT, one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, hurt workers in its retirement plan by engaging in an improper relationship with the financial firm Fidelity Investments.

Just days ahead of the start of the trial, MIT and the plaintiffs said in a court filing that they had reached the deal and are asking the court for 45 days in order for the details to be finalized and prepared for consideration by the court.

The lawsuit alleged that MIT went against the advice of its own consultants and allowed Fidelity to pack the university’s retirement plan with high-fee investment funds that ended up costing employees tens of millions of dollars. In return, the lawsuit said, MIT leveraged millions of dollars in donations from Fidelity.

MIT and Fidelity have said the allegations have no merit.

The lawsuit said Fidelity executives took MIT officials on lavish outings, including an NBA Finals game. Court documents show that in 2015, when the university considered other options, an MIT dean emailed the head of an MIT committee overseeing the plan: “If we’re not switching to Vanguard or TIAA Cref, I am going to expect something big and good coming to MIT,” according to the court records.

Jerry Schlichter, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said that soon afterwards, “Fidelity donated $5 million to MIT.”

In a court filing, MIT said the dean who wrote that email “never had any fiduciary responsibility for the plan.”

In a letter to faculty and staff Thursday, MIT Provost Martin Schmidt wrote: “Although MIT believes firmly that it has managed the 401(k) Plan in careful compliance with the law and in the best interests of its participants, the continued cost and distraction of litigation are likely to be significant. In order to avoid that continued drain of MIT resources, we have reached an agreement to settle the dispute.”

Schlichter has made a career of suing big company and university retirement plans, claiming they charge excessive fees and hurt workers. He sues to try to force the companies and universities to offer better plans. That has earned him the nickname “the 401(k) Lone Ranger.”

Given that history, assuming the settlement deal holds together and is approved by the court, it could include agreements from the university to change the way it manages its retirement plan.

In his letter, MIT’s Schmidt says, “We are proud of the retirement benefits offered to our employees and the processes in place to oversee those benefits. MIT is unique among our peers in offering employees both a supplemental 401(k) plan, with an MIT contribution match up to the first 5% of an employee’s pay, and a traditional defined-benefit pension plan, paid in full by the Institute.”

Fidelity, which is a financial supporter of NPR, is not named in the case. The company has said that the assertions in the lawsuit “are completely fictional and wholly irresponsible.”

Experts say lawsuits like this one have made big companies and universities much more aware of their legal duty to protect their workers’ interests in retirement accounts. They say that has helped reduce fees that workers pay in retirement plans at the largest companies. But they say many smaller organizations still have very high fees and bad investment options.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)